Is obscure, difficult prog deeper or more ...

Is obscure, difficult prog deeper or more rewarding than pleasant, accessible one?

When I think obscure, difficult prog, I think Van der Graaf Generator, Zeuhl, Can's Tago Mago, Lark's Tongue and the like. Often stuff that I can't even spell without looking at their correct spelling.

I never got into any obscure prog releases. So I'm wondering, if one day I did get into them, would I feel that they're deeper or more rewarding than easy-to-get-into prog works?

Examples of the latter: Porcupine Tree - Fear of a Blank Planet, Opeth - Still Life, King Crimson - Epitaph, Pink Floyd - Echoes.

People get enjoyment and satisfaction out of different things. Anyone who tries to say one ways of appreciating aesthetics like this is massively self-involved.

SaltyJon wrote: Only to those who prefer it to the more "pleasant, accessible" stuff.  To each his or her own, no music is inherently better or deeper or anything than any other music.

/thread

ExittheLemming wrote: Only a hard-line snob would give an unhesitating yes to your question. I know plenty of superficial shallow folks who immediately stop listening to certain bands as soon as they become commercially successful or popular. BTW I'm puzzled you consider Porcupine Tree either obscure or difficult?.

He was referring to PT as an easy to get into prog band, along with Opeth. Which is pretty true I suppose.

I could only listen to "Oh Yeah" on "Tago Mago" at first, but kept coming back to the album and trying again. After ten years or so I found I enjoyed the whole of sides one and two, but not really any more than music that appealed to me straight away. Now I have a much larger collection and keep finding new music to add to it, I don't see any need to torture myself with "Aumgn" any more. VdGG and KC didn't give me the same problems, I like them both, but prefer a random iPod mix nowadays where they're mixed in with contrasting sounds.

Billy Pilgrim wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Only a hard-line snob would give an unhesitating yes to your question. I know plenty of superficial shallow folks who immediately stop listening to certain bands as soon as they become commercially successful or popular. BTW I'm puzzled you consider Porcupine Tree either obscure or difficult?. He was referring to PT as an easy to get into prog band, along with Opeth. Which is pretty true I suppose.

Apologies, misread that part

paganinio wrote: Is obscure, difficult prog deeper or more rewarding than pleasant, accessible one?

 

Edited by Gerinski - January 28 2012 at 09:11

I think that accessibility is a trait in music that shouldn't judge whether the album's good or not. If an album is good at first listen- then it's a good album. If you have a hard time getting the album- listen to it until you actually understand what's going on- then judge. For example, I had to listen to Deathspell Omega abrasive style of weird prog black metal like 20 time to find out that in the end the album just had great song writing. Don't let the accessibility of a band waver your judgement of good, deep, intelligent, song-writing, and that includes accessible and inaccessible bands. There's only one bad type of bad bands- the ones who write bad songs, not the ones who write difficult ones. Difficult albums can be as deep as "easy listening" albums- a band's sound doesn't have anything to do with its song-writing skills.

Edited by frippism - January 28 2012 at 05:45

It's a mixed bag.  Some has a quality to it that is like classical music.
It's clean, it's uplifting or educational.  Some "difficult" music is otherwise.
I don't find the latter deep.  Just because music is weird or sounds
obtuse doesn't mean it's deep on my level.

--
np
Heinrick Finck (1444-1527) - Wer ich eyn falck - Invicto regi jubilo

PabstRibbon wrote: IMO from all of those you named the only one that can fits with your description is maybe Can Tago Mago. I don't feel that the others are 'obscure', in facts they are kind of classic prog for me.